On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:58:36 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 09:08:37 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:04:01 -0500, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
http://www.****qrz.com
Yet another example of someone who had

their feelings hurt and who is now on a

personal vendetta. It's childish in any case.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj

You obviously are more familiar with the site than myself, as I was just
made aware of it. Can you enlighten the contingency about whose feelings
were hurt and why?

Just read the site.


I did.

The author has outlines his "beef" quite

clearly.

I find nothing to indicate any hurt feelings.

Read between the lines.


Again, I ask you once
again to explain your position. What is it that has you subjectively
indicating hurt feelings were responsible for the creator's site?

That should be fairly obvious to anyone who understands human nature.
QRZ is a moderated forum. There are rules that are expected to be
followed. There are hundreds of discussions there and most people have
no problem. The author of the aforementioned site had a disagreement
with the owner of QRZ and got his feather ruffled, felt personally
persecuted because he couldn't abide by the rules and was kicked off.
So he's now set up an "anti-QRZ" site to somehow repair his bruised
ego, and garner support from other people who share his lack of
respect for the rules of civilized on-line discourse.


Thomas
Paine created his paper the Federalist and people like you screamed
similar to what you offer now attempting to explain his actions,,,,,and
his paper was anonymous.

There is no comparison.

Yet, the person you accuse makes very clear his
intention for his actions....censorship. And these folks are not
anonymous.

The issue is not censorship. The issue is one of following the rules
of membership. When you are in a non-public forum which is moderated,
there are certain expectations from the participants. Stray from those
rules and you risk losing your membership. You wouldn't engage in
boisterous, lewd behavior at a private golf club and not expect to be
reprimanded and expelled. So why should the same type of behavior be
tolerated on-line?


When one wishes to have an avenue free from undue interference and
censorship, sometimes one must create that avenue themselves.

Which is his right. Nothing wrong with that. But let's not lose track
of exactly WHY he chose to do such.


This is
twice in two days you have taken an American born patriotic birthright
and trashed it,,first was the right to select civil disobedience, now,
you accuse one who voices his own opinion on his own site with nothing
more than your own based subjective opinion, formed by reading the site
he took to task.

And in just as many times you have made a case that freedom of
expression should be universal even on private forums, and that any
rules restricting behavior for the better common good, are somehow
unfair. You can't have anarchy and expect to remain civilized. There
are far too many people who cannot handle that much responsibility.


There were also discussions on QRZ on the
"other side".



Invocation of the site he decries as improperly censoring as the pillar
of truth for -your- subjective bias is no different than the site
builder's actions you take issue with,,,,you just happen to be on the
"other side" (your words).

There are (at least) two sides to every argument. The bottom line is
that The author of the site (Which for some reason is no longer there
as I checked today), had a personal butting of heads with Floyd at
QRZ, and was kicked off of that site for not abiding by the rules.



Such is hardly an unbiased look at each site
regarding the issue that sparked the creation of the site responsible
for effectively moving you to the point of lambasting the creators.

Sure it is. It doesn't matter how "noble" you may think he is for
"standing up" to the "fascist" rules on QRZ, the fact remains that
when you belong to a private group, you are subject to rules. If you
can't abide by them, the owner/moderator has the right to kick you
off. Plain and simple.


In
that vein, the site you take issue with is an instant success, for if it
moved you in such a manner. In the media, there is no bad press,
regardless what you have been told. The only thing the public masses
love more than controversy is resiliency from one who was once
down...the underdog.


Like I said, for some reason, the site is no longer there. What does
that say?

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj